The Libya Crisis (military intervention started on march 19, 2011)

[Reckoner]

Nixon went into Cambodia. That wasn't Johnson.

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Sure. But let congress decide that. I'm just tired of the gross overstepping of power by the president.

Let the first senator who does not desire reelection cast the first vote.

[justinstrife]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't think it matters what America does anymore, we're going to catch crap from SOMEONE.

I'm frankly tired of America doing the majority of action around the world. Because we spend so much on our military, Europe isn't required to spend as much on military resources. It's time they start carrying some of the load a bit more often.

I applaud France and Britain for being the main players in this recent situation. France's leader has really been impressing me. He has more balls than one of his predecessors(who's name escapes me).

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

France's leader has really been impressing me. He has more balls than one of his predecessors(who's name escapes me).

It isn't about his ball; it's probably the best way he found to save face after all the mistake/mini scandal his gouvernement faced since the revolt in egypt.

[Flinch]

I believe it was the "War Powers Act" that allowed Johnson's free hand with the Vietnam "conflict" (too lazy to look it up, so going off of what I remember).

I still like how Obama keeps saying that the US will not deploy ground forces in Libya. Does he honestly expect people to not believe that there are Green Berets already on the ground, working with local militias, ready to move at moment's notice?

[Asuras]

Ssh! don't let the secret out!

Of course there are. There's the word "Special" for a reason, because they don't apply to normal rules!

[Ithekro]

Considering the state of the "police action" in Vietnam in 1970, and the movement of North Vietnamese troops through Cambodia into South Vietnam, I'd say that action was justified since the effect of those troop movements was getting more South Vietnamese and Americans killed each night. My father's tour of duty ended a week before that operation started, but he did patrol the rivers up to the border before that action happened.

(What I find weird though, after the war, the Vietnamese went in there and basically took Cambodia in a week.)

Also we had troops in Laos long before that under Kennedy's watch.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Flinch

I believe it was the "War Powers Act" that allowed Johnson's free hand with the Vietnam "conflict" (too lazy to look it up, so going off of what I remember).

I still like how Obama keeps saying that the US will not deploy ground forces in Libya. Does he honestly expect people to not believe that there are Green Berets already on the ground, working with local militias, ready to move at moment's notice?

The SFOD would have been too obvious, and they aren't trained in sociopolitical espionage and recon.

Unlike the SAD.

[Flinch]

True, but if you're going to send militia at trained military forces, you're going to need more than a few SOG operatives.

[milan kyuubi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Care to elaborate why? I am curious.

I'll try to keep this very short.

Why I think it's wrong? Well it's personal for me, in 1999 the US (Nato) bombed my country. So yes I think this is wrong and I am probably biased but I don't really care. I remember I had to watch bombs falling, and asked if I am going to live trough this. So I am kindy a holding a grudge here. I apologize if I insulted anyone it's not my intention to do so. Maybe this is not the same (attack on Libya as was on my home country) but every time I hear someone is trowing bombs I disagree with them and will hate them if they do so. Even if my own country were to do this I would still be against it.

[Kaioshin Sama]

This seems to me like a reasonable intervention on the part of the U.S/France/Great Britain and Canada who are the main powers involved. Yes there's more than just the United States that involved here. For me it comes down to the fact that if some first world nation(s) didn't intervene than Gadaffi's retribution against the rebellion and towns involved in it would have been swift, indiscriminate and brutal as it was already turning out to be before somebody stepped in.

Now I know it can be argued that the rebels started the fight themselves and should be left to finish it either way the battle turned, but the damage they inflicted on Gadaffi's regime during their successful periods was nothing compared to about what was going to happen to them. The goal here was to force Gadaffi to honor the ceasefire he and the rebels were already supposed to have agreed to. That seems to have been accomplished now so I look to the coming actions of all parties involved in order to decide who will prove to be right or wrong in the future.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Something is surely amiss, as with any war started under the pretense of happy rosy ideals and fluff. I'm not familiar with Libyan politics and how Kadafi got to power but I would surely be surprised if there isn't more to the dictator that had so many underhanded deals with several EU nations, especially Italy.

I can hardly see the US' interest here other than for diplomatic reasons. Not even moving the cogs of the war-machine makes sense as getting rid of Libya's army is like turkey-shooting for them, it won't even justify the costs of the weaponry used.

Gadaffi basically took Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser as his role model and came to power following a bloodless coup against the former Libyan Monarchy while he was a young colonel through a bit of ingenuity (for the time) and a little bit of luck.

[Pellissier]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Its really a Brit-French-US affair with some symbolic appearances by other forces. If any of the players had not bought into it (especially the Arab League) - it would not have happened.

So its kind of misleading to call a "US Raid"...

I agree it wasn't really a 100% fitting title and I changed it into a more generic Lybia Crisis (easier to spot than the operation's name "Odissey Dawn"). Also noted the day the first raids started, march 19th, just for the record.

[Tsuyoshi]

Before I say anything, what do China and Russia think about this?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Before I say anything, what do China and Russia think about this?

As usual. "......imperialist dogs........US hegemony.........". Their scripts always run along those lines when US does something.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

As usual. "......imperialist dogs........US hegemony.........". Their scripts always run along those lines when US does something.

What of their involvement in the UN? I've heard (from an admittedly questionable source) that they voted against US and European armed military intervention in Libya because of their interests in the oil there, which wouldn't be surprising.

[Pellissier]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Before I say anything, what do China and Russia think about this?

In a nutshell.
Russia is strongly hostile towards the intervention.
China is also hostile (though more mildly than Russia).

[Vexx]

China and Russia get ?understandably? nervous when the international community sporadically rouses from its slumber and objects to the way some government bludgeons its people.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

What of their involvement in the UN? I've heard (from an admittedly questionable source) that they voted against US and European armed military intervention in Libya because of their interests in the oil there, which wouldn't be surprising.

If they had voted against, then the resolution would not have passed at all, given their Veto powers. They abstained.

[Tsuyoshi]

Well, my question about their opinion on the situation is if it's really an interest in Libyan oil or purely out of spite for the US and EU. If it's the latter, then that's just a question of ideology. If it's the former, they should really understand that with or without intervention, Libya's in a condition where oil is hard to get as it is due to a civil war already happening and could easily degenerate to tribal wars on top of that.

Tbh, as far as the US goes, I'm not really for or against it, and the same goes for Europe. However, I do believe something needs to be done about Gheddafi bombing his own people. My real issue with the intervention is if the western powers actually know who the protesters they're supporting actually are and what they want out of their revolution. While it's good that they know who they oppose, it's been mentioned before various times in the news thread: how do we know that whoever gains power after one dictator falls will be better or worse? Take the situation in Egypt right now for instance. The protesters succeeded in getting Mubarak to step down, but they've yet to decide who will take his place and are too reliant on the currently existing system to amend the constitution when the purpose was to really get rid of that completely. We don't know who it is that will take the government after the old one is destroyed. Part of why I'm skeptical about the intervention is because I'm not completely certain the west knows what's gonna happen in the mideast after all is said and done.

[Flinch]

Do people ever do things out of the goodness of their heart anymore?

The US sent foreign aid all over the world during the Cold War to bring as many countries as possible to the "Allied" side (and thus, we've yet to stop doing it, as humanitarians would throw a fit if we stopped sending aid). We did it with an ulterior motive.

Cruise Missiles are, in comparison to ground troops, a dime a dozen. If I'm remembering correctly, a US soldier's life equates out to about 400,000 USD (Including training, equipment, food, everything they'll use; and life expectancy is generally 3 tours of duty), and a cruise missile is roughly 1,000,000 USD. In comparison, its much more cost effective (for the DoD, at least) to shoot million dollar missiles than put boots on the ground (cause then you bring logistics into it, and it becomes a financial nightmare).

The primary motive here is oil. Plain and simple. You put on the mask of the humanitarian, and no one asks questions.